If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
BSD licence = you work 10 years, on a project. A company comes along picks it up, lets you starve, picks up your patches, and makes money. killing it`s developer and itself. Is that what you call open source?
?A privative FORK? sure, the license itself allows it. if you don't want that, you probably should p?ck another license (tool) for the job : End of The Story
One talks about mine being legally weak, and this even is completely horrenduous?
About legallity, I can`t imagine a court, saying "ok, someone took your code and released it as closed source, we can`t see your licence covering this". How full of shit is it possible to get in these courts?
Then again, I am watching Breivik trial. And I am noticing a certain legal language. hopefully the language and process itself, has not become too obscure, to actually do something sensible.
I do believe it is called "law and justice". You don`t have to think a lot about that most of the time. What I am seeing, is ofcourse extreme penalty, peoples minds are already made up, we are just waiting for the "dance" to be done. I mean if the guy got shot, nobody would care. It`s a bit odd because they are doing their dance, and he is doing his, and it is almost like he is a joke, making a fool of them, as if his dance is somehow relevant, but yet we have to watch it because of the whole legal dance around it.
The worst possibly being how "they care" about Breivik. That is the legal language. But honestly do they really care about Breivik?
The licence is simple. If such a simple licence has not enough legal background, then obviously someone needs to put a really great Occhamz razor on legal structures, and put the human back in centre.
Indeed if I were to say "open source" online, most people would understand what I mean.
"opensource not going closed source" seems at the time being to be enough, to convey that idea. Soon hopefully only "opensource" should do that.
D00d you are missing the point. The code is no longer opensource. Did you even read anything I wrote?
The code may not be open source after it has been modified but that doesn't change the fact that the BSD licence itself is still an open source licence (according to the OSI definition of "open source"). To say otherwise would mean that there must be some contention about the definition of "open source", even though your Maximal licence assumes that there isn't.
If someone licences their code under a permissive licence such as BSD/MIT and similar they are fully aware that it can be brought into a proprietary project and enhanced without those enhancements being contributed back, BUT they are obviously ok with this since if they weren't they would use other licences (like GPL) which does require source code to be contributed back (if distributed that is).
Bottom line is that there is no perfect licence, since it's all up to individuals to decide under which licence they want to publish their open source code and as always we have different preferences, which is why discussions like these are pretty much pointless and generally just end up confirming Godwin's law. It's up to the author of the code to decide under which conditions other people can use it, the rest of us can can choose to accept these terms or leave it be.
The rest of you obviously have problems understanding this simple concept. There is no reasonable thinking here, just bimbos babbling. So, yes, I do calculate some loss, and instead consider my public those who CAN understand.